There is no micro evolution vs macro evolution written about in any peer-reviewed journal in the wolrd. There is no need to prove "micro+micro=macro", and the entire concept doesn't exist, and is so preposterously ridiculous. No real scientist would even try. Stop spamming your shit, troll. There are consequences here for it.

Insufferable know-it-all. It is objectively immoral to kill innocent babies. Please stick to the guilty babies.

(01-03-2014 11:03 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: There is no micro evolution vs macro evolution written about in any peer-reviewed journal in the word. There is no need to prove "micro+micro=macro", and the entire concept doesn't exist, and is so preposterously ridiculous. No real scientist would even try. Stop spamming your shit, troll. There are consequences here for it.

So you plagiarize me now ? And threatening me ? Am i suppose to be afraid ?

(01-03-2014 10:57 PM)Deltabravo Wrote: The simple way to look at this is that these tiny organisms are made up of a combination of molecules and, given infinite time and space, they form an organism, not by "chance" but because the concept of infinity means that probability theory means they "must". That is what probability theory is.

Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p. 24.

“The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10^20)2,000 = 10^40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth [by chance or natural processes], this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court.”

(01-03-2014 11:03 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: There is no micro evolution vs macro evolution written about in any peer-reviewed journal in the word. There is no need to prove "micro+micro=macro", and the entire concept doesn't exist, and is so preposterously ridiculous. No real scientist would even try. Stop spamming your shit, troll. There are consequences here for it.

So you plagiarize me now ? And threatening me ? Am i suppose to be afraid ?

You need to look up the definition of the word plagiarize, idiot. There is no instance here or anywhere, where I plagiarized you. Why would I copy your shit, and make myself look as stupid as you.

I threaten no one. This forum has rules. You should read them. What the fuck are you doing here. Oh wait, you're next week's nut case (we get about one a week), with their "only I figured thus shit out" line. You're just the latest in a very long line of nuts. Many of them, such as yourself, suffer from this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%...ger_effect

Insufferable know-it-all. It is objectively immoral to kill innocent babies. Please stick to the guilty babies.

(01-03-2014 10:57 PM)Deltabravo Wrote: The simple way to look at this is that these tiny organisms are made up of a combination of molecules and, given infinite time and space, they form an organism, not by "chance" but because the concept of infinity means that probability theory means they "must". That is what probability theory is.

Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p. 24.

“The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10^20)2,000 = 10^40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth [by chance or natural processes], this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court.”

Quoting from an argument supporting Panspermia even further weakens your "irreducible complexity" argument.

You're simply adding time to the abundance of time fast-adapting bacteria could have developed "complex" organic systems before their appearance in Earth's geological record.

(01-03-2014 10:57 PM)Deltabravo Wrote: The simple way to look at this is that these tiny organisms are made up of a combination of molecules and, given infinite time and space, they form an organism, not by "chance" but because the concept of infinity means that probability theory means they "must". That is what probability theory is.

Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p. 24.

“The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10^20)2,000 = 10^40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth [by chance or natural processes], this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court.”

Highly improbably events happen all the time. There is no way to set up a "trial" that lasts millions of years, with each succeeding step dependent on the preceding one. Troll.

Insufferable know-it-all. It is objectively immoral to kill innocent babies. Please stick to the guilty babies.

(01-03-2014 10:57 PM)Deltabravo Wrote: The simple way to look at this is that these tiny organisms are made up of a combination of molecules and, given infinite time and space, they form an organism, not by "chance" but because the concept of infinity means that probability theory means they "must". That is what probability theory is.

Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p. 24.

“The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10^20)2,000 = 10^40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth [by chance or natural processes], this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court.”

The universe is infinite so the probability becomes a likelihood. On one theory, a certainty.